DOCSLIB.ORG

A Journalist's Guide to Covering Bioterrorism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Journalist's Guide to Covering Bioterrorism A Journalist’s Guide to Covering Bioterrorism Second Edition Radio and Television News Directors Foundation News Content and Issues Project Published with the generous support of Carnegie Corporation of New York Bioterrorism A Journalist’s Guide to Covering Bioterrorism Second Edition By David Chandler and India Landrigan • Made possible by the generous support of Carnegie Corporation of New York Radio and Television News Directors Foundation • President, Barbara Cochran • Executive Director, Deborah Potter Editors: Mary Alice Anderson, Loy McGaughy Project Advisers: Jerome Hauer, Dr. Phillip Landrigan, Scott Miller, David Ropeik Copyright ©2004 by the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation (RTNDF). All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from RTNDF. Printed in the United States of America. The version of this guide that appears on RTNDF’s web site may be downloaded for individual use, but may not be reproduced or further transmitted without written permission by RTNDF. A JOURNALIST’S GUIDE TO COVERING BIOTERRORISM Table of Contents Foreword .................................................................................................................................3 Why This Guide Is Needed.....................................................................................................5 What Is Bioterrorism?.............................................................................................................7 When Biological Weapons Have Been Used........................................................................11 How a Biological Attack Might Unfold ...............................................................................15 Possible Bioweapons .............................................................................................................18 Laws and Treaties That Govern Biological Weapons ..........................................................31 Who Has Biological Weapons ..............................................................................................35 What Can Be Done for Defense...........................................................................................38 Where to Get Information....................................................................................................42 Glossary .................................................................................................................................46 A JOURNALIST’S GUIDE TO COVERING BIOTERRORISM Foreword Journalists usually are uninvolved observers, reporting on events as they unfold. But as we know all too well—after the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington—when anthrax hit, journalists and news organizations themselves became part of the story. Being in harm’s way is nothing new to the news people who cover wars, natural disasters or other emergencies. Veteran journalists know how to deliver such stories without causing undue alarm, but covering bioterrorism presents a unique set of challenges. Public perceptions may, and likely will, play a deciding role. As it was on September 11 and in the days immediately following, media performance will be critical. If the public panics, responses by government and health authorities may be affected. For example, if a bioterror attack led authorities to impose isolation or quarantine policies and something about the reporting led people to disregard the policies, containing the infection could become more difficult, leading to further deaths. Or, if a frightened public overwhelms hospital and public health facilities, chaos could ensue. Obviously, the opposite also is true: Helpful information, disseminated quickly and effectively, will go a long way toward preventing major disruptions. This is a new kind of problem—for the United States and for the world, for the first-response emergency personnel and for the journalists reporting on them. Thankfully, no one yet has a wealth of experience in responding to bioterror attacks. Unfortunately, that could change. The better prepared we all are to play our respective parts during the heat and confusion of an emergency, the better we will be able to do our jobs. And that’s why RTNDF has prepared this handbook—as one way to help journalists prepare for covering bioterrorism. There is a massive difference between a crisis and a catastrophe, and in the case of bioterror attack, the effects of media coverage on public perception could be the deciding factor between the two. Although we hope none of us ever will need to know the kind of detailed information provided here, we have gathered facts, background information and resources and have presented them in what we hope is an easy-to-use format. Please read this guide now, before you need it, and keep it handy. Should a bioterror attack occur, your viewers and listeners will need critical information, delivered quickly, accurately and in the proper context. We hope this guide serves as one of the many tools you use to deliver the news to a public in need. Special thanks to Carnegie Corporation of New York for providing the funding that enabled RTNDF to prepare this essential publication and to update it in response to strong demand. Barbara Cochran President, Radio-Television News Directors Association and Radio and Television News Directors Foundation April 2004 3 4 A JOURNALIST’S GUIDE TO COVERING BIOTERRORISM Why This Guide Is Needed The very nature of an attack using biological weapons can present a unique set of difficulties and challenges for reporters, editors and producers as they struggle during a rapidly unfolding event to present the facts as clearly, objectively and dispassionately as possible. For example, during the anthrax attacks in information by misguided officials, can make the October 2001, some journalists suddenly found situation much worse—for example, creating public themselves in the middle of the story. They had panic that may be the true objective of the attacker. become specific targets and potential victims of the Conversely, a quick release of the straight, basic facts, very attacks they were reporting on when an restrained reporting and the use of knowledgeable anthrax-laced letter was found at the headquarters and balanced sources can play an important role in of NBC News in New York City and an assistant to controlling needless public fears, disseminating anchorman Tom Brokaw tested positive for the important information about protective measures, disease. Employees at both ABC News and CBS and encouraging rational responses. News also were possible targets and potential There is ongoing debate about exactly how much victims although the actual contaminating letters information to release, when and in what form — a Some journalists were never found in either location. More broadly, it debate that intensified in the wake of the 2001 suddenly found appeared the media in general were being targeted. attacks. Thomas Glass, an epidemiologist and The initial attack was in a letter addressed to sociologist at Johns Hopkins University, published a themselves in the American Media headquarters in Florida, publishers study in December 2001 saying that during the middle of the of a variety of supermarket tabloids, and another anthrax attacks, officials were so intent on averting anthrax-laced letter was received at the New York panic that they withheld some information from the story. They had Post. The attack had become personal, and public and distorted other information. The result, maintaining an impartial demeanor on camera he said, was actually the reverse: People are more become specific became unusually difficult. likely to panic as a result of lack of information. targets and In general, the slow and gradual unfolding of a Numerous studies of emergency responses have biological attack can leave a long interval when there shown that when told the truth about a disaster potential victims is uncertainty about many of the crucial facts: the (natural or human-induced), people tend to remain of the very exact location or extent of the initial release; the type calm and organize themselves to help those who of biological agent used; its level of volatility, have been affected. Among the lessons to be learned, attacks they were virulence and stability over time; or the likelihood of according to several specialists in risk reporting on. additional releases that could take place, or might communication, is that a knowledgeable, official already have taken place but have not yet produced source should have been made available to the press symptoms. Uninformed public speculation during as a regular daily event, and more information this period of maximum uncertainty, or a vacuum should have been provided about measures citizens of information caused by the withholding of could take to protect themselves. 5 A JOURNALIST’S GUIDE TO COVERING BIOTERRORISM Lee Clark, a sociologist at Rutgers University, has very difficult to locate knowledgeable sources for done research that emphasizes this point. He has specific, detailed and realistic information. Initially, found that while public officials and analysts even the nature of the biological agent may be typically cite the risk of panic as a reason for unknown, adding to the difficulty of providing controlling or withholding information, the fact is useful information. Whatever on-air sources can be Some government that panic—defined as group action that is found on very short notice—including
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism: Confronting the Dual Use Dilemma
    Prepublication Copy BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH IN AN AGE OF TERRORISM: CONFRONTING THE DUAL USE DILEMMA Committee on Research Standards and Practices to Prevent the Destructive Application of Biotechnology Development, Security, and Cooperation Policy and Global Affairs National Research Council OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES The National Academies Press Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES 500 FIFTH STREET, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the Committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. Financial Support: The development of this report was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-09087-3 Additional copies of this report are available from National Academies Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, D.C. 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, //www.nap.edu Printed in the United States of America Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Pandemic Preparedness: Beyond Bioterrorism & Federalism
    A thought leadership and advisory company working at the intersection of healthcare strategy, economics, capital formation and transformation. Pandemic Preparedness: Beyond Bioterrorism & Federalism By Kerry Weems July 21, 2020 ne week to the day following the 911 attacks, five letters containing anthrax Ospores were sent the offices of major media outlets, including the National Enquirer. Just over two weeks later, Robert Stevens from the National Enquirer’s sister publication The Sun died from anthrax poisoning. Ultimately, these anthrax attacks afflicted twenty-two people and killed five of them, and caused public confusion, concern and fear. The FBI led the federal response to the attacks and treated them as a law enforcement event. At the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) where I worked at the time, the attacks laid bare a glaring lack of preparedness for bioterrorism attacks. Mr. Stevens’ death triggered a series of events within HHS that compromised the agency’s short-term effectiveness to combat the anthrax emergency. These included muddled communications, rampant rumor spread, and bureaucratic paralysis. We had been unprepared for the anthrax attacks and knew it. While bioterrorism attacks and pandemics share many characteristics, they are fundamentally different types of Subsequent to the anthrax attacks, HHS developed policies emergencies to manage. As we have experienced with the and capabilities to address bioterrorism more systematically coronavirus, pandemics carry greater societal risk. Our nation’s and effectively. Understanding this history is essential to flawed preparations for pandemics and its uneven response explaining how HHS responded to the current coronavirus continues to devast the population and economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Pharmaceutical Patents Exemption Right As A
    AGAINST THE PLAGUE: EXEMPTION OF PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT RIGHTS AS A BIOSECURITY STRATEGY Taiwo A. Oriola* I. INTRODUCTION Acts of terrorism involve threats to use or use of weapons of mass destruction to kill, maim, or destroy property by individuals, groups, or states1 mainly on political grounds, and for maximum political effects.2 Terror attacks are characterized by stealth, indiscriminate violence, and destruction meant to heighten people’s fears and concerns for their lives and property.3 As terrorism has increased, so have the number of counterterrorism strategies by governments around the world.4 However, terrorism is as old as mankind.5 * Cardiff Law School, and the ESRC Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability, & Society, University of Cardiff, United Kingdom. 1. An early example of a state-sponsored terrorist was the Roman emperor Nero, who ruled by fear, slaughtered many members of the nobility, and has been blamed for the burning of Rome. CINDY C. COMBS & MARTIN SLANN, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF TERRORISM 201 (2002). Dysfunctional or anarchistic individuals or groups acting alone or in concert can perpetrate terrorist attacks. See Jonathan Glover, State Terrorism, in VIOLENCE, TERRORISM, AND JUSTICE 256, 257-60 (Raymond G. Frey & Christopher W. Morris eds., 1991) (contrasting historical state and independent terrorists, highlighting essential features of state-sponsored terrorism, and explaining why states commit acts of terrorism). 2. Political motivation has been described as “a necessary component to a definition of terrorism.” COMBS & SLANN, supra note 1, at 211. For examples of statutory definitions of terrorism, see Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001, Pub.
    [Show full text]
  • Pathogens As Weapons Gregory Koblentz the International Security Implications of Biological Warfare
    Pathogens as Weapons Pathogens as Weapons Gregory Koblentz The International Security Implications of Biological Warfare Biological weapons have become one of the key security issues of the twenty-ªrst century.1 Three factors that ªrst emerged in the 1990s have contributed to this phenomenon. First, revelations regarding the size, scope, and sophistication of the Soviet and Iraqi biological warfare programs focused renewed attention on the prolifera- tion of these weapons.2 Second, the catastrophic terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and the anthrax letters sent to media outlets and Senate ofªces in the United States during the following month, demonstrated the desire of terror- ists to cause massive casualties and heightened concern over their ability to employ biological weapons.3 Third, signiªcant advances in the life sciences have increased concerns about how the biotechnology revolution could be ex- ploited to develop new or improved biological weapons.4 These trends suggest that there is a greater need than ever to answer several fundamental questions about biological warfare: What is the nature of the threat? What are the poten- tial strategic consequences of the proliferation of biological weapons? How ef- Gregory Koblentz is a doctoral candidate in Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I would like to thank Robert Art, Thomas Christensen, Linda Fu, Jeanne Guillemin, Kendall Hoyt, Milton Leitenberg, John Ellis van Courtland Moon, Julian Perry Robinson, Harvey Sapolsky, Mar- garet Sloane, Jonathan Tucker, and Stephen Van Evera for their support and discussion of previous drafts. I am also grateful for comments from the participants in seminars at the Massachusetts In- stitute of Technology’s Security Studies Program, Harvard University’s John M.
    [Show full text]
  • 1540 Committee Matrix of Slovakia
    1540 COMMITTEE MATRIX OF SLOVAKIA The information in the matrices originates primarily from national reports and is complemented by official government information, including that made available to inter-governmental organizations. The matrices are prepared under the direction of the 1540 Committee. The 1540 Committee intends to use the matrices as a reference tool for facilitating technical assistance and to enable the Committee to continue to enhance its dialogue with States on their implementation of Security Council Resolution 1540. The matrices are not a tool for measuring compliance of States in their non-proliferation obligations but for facilitating the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 1540 (2004), 1673 (2006), 1810 (2008) and 1977 (2011). They do not reflect or prejudice any ongoing discussions outside of the Committee, in the Security Council or any of its organs, of a State's compliance with its non-proliferation or any other obligations. Information on voluntary commitments is for reporting purpose only and does not constitute in any way a legal obligation arising from resolution 1540 or its successive resolutions. OP 1 and related matters from OP 5, OP 6, OP 8 (a), (b), (c) and OP 10 State: SLOVAKIA Date of Report: 2 November 2004 Date of First Addendum: 14 December 2004 Date of Second Addendum: 14 December 2007 Date of Committee Approval: Remarks (information refers Legally binding instruments, to the page of the organizations, codes of YES if YES, relevant information (i.e. signing, accession, ratification,
    [Show full text]
  • Mitchell & Kilner
    THE NEWSLETTER VOLUME 9 OF THE CENTER NUMBER 3 FOR BIOETHICS AND SUMMER 2003 HUMAN DIGNITY Inside: Remaking Humans: The New Utopians Versus a Truly Human Future1 Remaking Humans: The New Utopians Versus a Truly Human C. Ben Mitchell, Ph.D., Senior FeIIow,The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity 1 John F. Kilner, Ph.D., President,The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity Future If the nineteenth century was the age of the mentally by making use of reason, science, The Genetics of Mice and Men: machine and the twentieth century the infor and technology. In addition, respect for the Can—and Should—We mation age, this century is, by most accounts, rights of the individual and a belief in the 2 the age of biotechnology. In this biotech cen power of human ingenuity are important ele Intervene? tury we may witness the invention of cures for ments of transhumanism. Transhumanists genetically linked diseases, including also repudiate belief in the existence of super Movie Review natural powers that guide us. These things 4 Alzheimer’s, cancer, and a host of maladies News from the Field that cause tremendous human suffering. We together represent the core of our philosophy. may see amazing developments in food pro The critical and rational approach which duction with genetically modified foods that transhumanists support is at the service of the 6 Book Review actually carry therapeutic drugs inside them. desire to improve humankind and humanity in all their facets.” Bioterrorism and high-tech weaponry may 7 Center Resources also be in our future. Some researchers are even suggesting that our future might include Again, the idea of improving society through the remaking of the human species.
    [Show full text]
  • It Came from Outer Space: the Virus, Cultural Anxiety, and Speculative
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2002 It came from outer space: the virus, cultural anxiety, and speculative fiction Anne-Marie Thomas Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the English Language and Literature Commons Recommended Citation Thomas, Anne-Marie, "It came from outer space: the virus, cultural anxiety, and speculative fiction" (2002). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 4085. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/4085 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE: THE VIRUS, CULTURAL ANXIETY, AND SPECULATIVE FICTION A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of English by Anne-Marie Thomas B.A., Texas A&M-Commerce, 1994 M.A., University of Arkansas, 1997 August 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract . iii Chapter One The Replication of the Virus: From Biomedical Sciences to Popular Culture . 1 Two “You Dropped A Bomb on Me, Baby”: The Virus in Action . 29 Three Extreme Possibilities . 83 Four To Devour and Transform: Viral Metaphors in Science Fiction by Women . 113 Five The Body Electr(on)ic Catches Cold: Viruses and Computers . 148 Six Coda: Viral Futures .
    [Show full text]
  • The Australia Group LIST of HUMAN and ANIMAL PATHOGENS and TOXINS for EXPORT CONTROL[1]
    The Australia Group LIST OF HUMAN AND ANIMAL PATHOGENS AND TOXINS FOR EXPORT CONTROL[1] July 2017 Viruses 1. African horse sickness virus 2. African swine fever virus 3. Andes virus 4. Avian influenza virus[2] 5. Bluetongue virus 6. Chapare virus 7. Chikungunya virus 8. Choclo virus 9. Classical swine fever virus (Hog cholera virus) 10. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus 11. Dobrava-Belgrade virus 12. Eastern equine encephalitis virus 13. Ebolavirus: all members of the Ebolavirus genus 14. Foot-and-mouth disease virus 15. Goatpox virus 16. Guanarito virus 17. Hantaan virus 18. Hendra virus (Equine morbillivirus) 19. Japanese encephalitis virus 20. Junin virus 21. Kyasanur Forest disease virus 22. Laguna Negra virus 23. Lassa virus 24. Louping ill virus 25. Lujo virus 26. Lumpy skin disease virus 27. Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus 28. Machupo virus 29. Marburgvirus: all members of the Marburgvirus genus 30. Monkeypox virus 31. Murray Valley encephalitis virus 32. Newcastle disease virus 33. Nipah virus 34. Omsk hemorrhagic fever virus 35. Oropouche virus 36. Peste-des-petits-ruminants virus 37. Porcine Teschovirus 38. Powassan virus 39. Rabies virus and other members of the Lyssavirus genus 40. Reconstructed 1918 influenza virus 41. Rift Valley fever virus 42. Rinderpest virus 43. Rocio virus 44. Sabia virus 45. Seoul virus 46. Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-related coronavirus) 47. Sheeppox virus 48. Sin Nombre virus 49. St. Louis encephalitis virus 50. Suid herpesvirus 1 (Pseudorabies virus; Aujeszky's disease) 51. Swine vesicular disease virus 52. Tick-borne encephalitis virus (Far Eastern subtype) 53. Variola virus 54.
    [Show full text]
  • Responding to the Threat of Agroterrorism: Specific Recommendations for the United States Department of Agriculture
    Responding to the Threat of Agroterrorism: Specific Recommendations for the United States Department of Agriculture Anne Kohnen ESDP-2000-04 BCSIA-2000-29 October 2000 CITATION AND REPRODUCTION This document appears as Discussion Paper 2000-29 of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and as contribution ESDP-2000-04 of the Executive Session on Domestic Preparedness, a joint project of the Belfer Center and the Taubman Center for State and Local Government. Comments are welcome and may be directed to the author in care of the Executive Session on Domestic Session. This paper may be cited as Anne Kohnen. “Responding to the Threat of Agroterrorism: Specific Recommendations for the United States Department of Agriculture.” BCSIA Discussion Paper 2000-29, ESDP Discussion Paper ESDP-2000-04, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, October 2000. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Anne Kohnen graduated from the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, in June 2000, with a Master’s degree in public policy, specializing in science and technology policy. This paper is an extension of her Master’s thesis. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author expresses special thanks go to the following people who contributed to this paper valuable information and expertise. From the USDA: Jerry Alanko, Dr. Bruce Carter, Dr. Tom Gomez, Dr. David Huxsoll, Dr. Steve Knight, Dr. Paul Kohnen, Dr. Marc Mattix, Dr. Norm Steele, Dr. Ian Stewart, Dr. Ty Vannieuwenhoven, Dr. Tom Walton, and Dr. Oliver Williams. From other agencies: Dr. Norm Schaad (USAMRIID), Dr. Tracee Treadwell (CDC). From the Kennedy School of Government: Dr. Richard Falkenrath, Greg Koblentz, Robyn Pangi, and Wendy Volkland.
    [Show full text]
  • Agroterrorism: Threats and Preparedness
    Order Code RL32521 Agroterrorism: Threats and Preparedness Updated March 12, 2007 Jim Monke Analyst in Agricultural Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Agroterrorism: Threats and Preparedness Summary The potential for terrorist attacks against agricultural targets (agroterrorism) is increasingly recognized as a national security threat, especially after the events of September 11, 2001. Agroterrorism is a subset of bioterrorism, and is defined as the deliberate introduction of an animal or plant disease with the goal of generating fear, causing economic losses, and/or undermining social stability. The goal of agroterrorism is not to kill cows or plants. These are the means to the end of causing economic damage, social unrest, and loss of confidence in government. Human health could be at risk if contaminated food reaches the table or if an animal pathogen is transmissible to humans (zoonotic). While agriculture may not be a terrorist’s first choice because it lacks the “shock factor” of more traditional terrorist targets, many analysts consider it a viable secondary target. Agriculture has several characteristics that pose unique vulnerabilities. Farms are geographically disbursed in unsecured environments. Livestock are frequently concentrated in confined locations, and transported or commingled with other herds. Many agricultural diseases can be obtained, handled, and distributed easily. International trade in food products often is tied to disease-free status, which could be jeopardized by an attack. Many veterinarians lack experience with foreign animal diseases that are eradicated domestically but remain endemic in foreign countries. In the past five years, “food defense” has received increasing attention in the counterterrorism and bioterrorism communities. Laboratory and response capacity are being upgraded to address the reality of agroterrorism, and national response plans now incorporate agroterrorism.
    [Show full text]
  • Nov03 POSTER1106.Indd
    The National Cancer Institute Ft. Detrick’s 60th Anniversary story on page 3. News from the NCI-Frederick NOVEMBER 2003 Offi ce of Scientifi c Operations IN THIS ISSUE This year we celebrate the 60th Owned-Contractor Operated (GOCO) Ft. Detrick’s 60th Anniversary 3 anniversary of Fort (Ft.) Detrick. facility. Ft. Detrick’s roots can be traced to The fi rst employees of the NCI- Major Construction Projects 4 a small municipal airport known as Frederick (then known as the Detrick Field1, The Field was named Frederick Cancer Research Center) Building 470 Update 5 to honor Major Frederick L. Detrick, appeared on campus in June 1972 and who served in France during World numbered around 20 by the end of Scientifi c Publications, War I. The fi rst military presence at that month. By 1976 these numbers Graphics & Media News 6 the airfi eld was in 1931 when the had grown to about 750 individuals, Maryland National Guard established and by 1987 the staff numbered over Awards 6 a cadet pilot training center at Detrick 1,400 with a budget of nearly $100 Field and subsequently Platinum Publications 8 changed the name to Camp Detrick. Poster-Script 11 As we pause to think about the history of Ft. Did You Know? 12 Detrick and the many contributions that the Transfer Technology Branch 14 staff of Ft. Detrick has made in the areas of Community Outreach 15 infectious disease and national defense, it Offi ce of Diversity and seems that now is an Employee Programs 16 appropriate time to also look back at the history Environment, Health, and Safety of the NCI here at Ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioterrorism & Biodefense
    Hugh-Jones et al. J Bioterr Biodef 2011, S3 Bioterrorism & Biodefense http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2157-2526.S3-001 Review Article Open Access The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations Martin E Hugh-Jones1*, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg2 and Stuart Jacobsen3 1Professor Emeritus, Louisiana State University; Anthrax Moderator, ProMED-mail, USA 2Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research and State Univ. of NY-Purchase (retired); Scientists Working Group on CBW, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, USA 3Technical Consultant Silicon Materials, Dallas, TX,USA Abstract Unresolved scientificquestions, remaining ten years after the anthrax attacks, three years after the FBI accused a dead man of perpetrating the 2001 anthrax attacks singlehandedly, and more than a year since they closed the case without further investigation, indictment or trial, are perpetuating serious concerns that the FBI may have accused the wrong person of carrying out the anthrax attacks. The FBI has not produced concrete evidence on key questions: • Where and how were the anthrax spores in the attack letters prepared? There is no material evidence of where the attack anthrax was made, and no direct evidence that any specific individual made the anthrax, or mailed it. On the basis of a number` of assumptions, the FBI has not scrutinized the most likely laboratories. • How and why did the spore powders acquire the high levels of silicon and tin found in them? The FBI has repeatedly insisted that the powders in the letters contained no additives, but they also claim that they have not been able to reproduce the high silicon content in the powders, and there has been little public mention of the extraordinary presence of tin.
    [Show full text]